Last August, FIVDA drew a map of the Premier League and found a striking imbalance.
Newcastle United faced 3,428.1 one-way miles of domestic away travel across the 2025/26 season. Aston Villa faced only 1,835.9. Newcastle’s schedule required almost twice as much straight-line mileage simply because of where St James’ Park sits on the map. FIVDA
FIVDA’s original 2025/26 Premier League travel analysis ended with a question rather than a conclusion.
Did any of that actually matter?
We said we would return once every club had played enough matches to test it. Now all 380 Premier League fixtures have been completed.
And the answer is more interesting than the original geography.
Across the 20 clubs, greater domestic travel showed only a weak relationship with away points and an even weaker relationship with away expected-goal performance. Controlling for team strength did not reveal a clear hidden penalty either. Football Club History Database StatMuse
The mileage imbalance was real.
The measurable football disadvantage was not.
First, we rebuilt the travel data
Rather than simply carrying the original FIVDA totals forward, the 2025/26 analysis independently reconstructed the distances for all 20 clubs using stadium coordinates from the Football Club History Database. Great-circle distances were then calculated between each club and its 19 away opponents, using the same basic principle as the original article: straight-line stadium-to-stadium miles, counted one way only. Football Club History Database
The reconstruction broadly reproduces the geographical picture FIVDA identified before the season.
Newcastle again sit furthest from the league, at 3,428.1 miles. Sunderland are close behind on 3,357.3, followed by Bournemouth at 2,889.7 and Brighton at 2,672.0. Aston Villa sit at the other end on approximately 1,836.0 miles. Football Club History Database
Across all 20 clubs, the reconstructed average was approximately 2,263.5 one-way miles.
That confirms the premise.
Some Premier League clubs really do face substantially more domestic travel than others.
But geography and performance are different questions.
More travel did not clearly mean fewer away points
The simplest test is also the one supporters probably care about most.
Did clubs travelling further collect fewer points away from home?
Not reliably.
The correlation between seasonal one-way mileage and away points per match was -0.14. Football Club History Database StatMuse
A correlation of -1 would represent a perfect negative relationship: as travel increased, away performance would fall in lockstep.
Zero would mean no linear relationship at all.
At -0.14, the 2025/26 Premier League was much closer to the second description. There was a slight tendency for the higher-travel clubs to collect fewer away points, but the relationship was far too weak to provide convincing evidence that mileage was driving their results.
Figure 1 — More Premier League travel did not clearly mean fewer away points. Football Club History Database StatMuse
The individual clubs make the same point.
Newcastle, the furthest travellers, averaged 0.895 away points per match. But Bournemouth travelled almost 2,890 miles and averaged 1.368. Sunderland were the second-furthest travellers and managed 1.105. Football Club History Database StatMuse
At the low-mileage end, the spread is even more revealing.
Arsenal travelled approximately 2,001 miles and averaged 2.0 away points per match.
Wolves travelled even less, approximately 1,884 miles, and averaged 0.316. Football Club History Database StatMuse
Almost identical geographic circumstances.
Almost opposite football outcomes.
Maybe points are too noisy. What about xG?
Match results can be messy.
A goalkeeper has an exceptional afternoon. A striker misses an open goal. A team dominates and loses 1-0.
If travel genuinely weakens performance, expected goals might reveal something that points obscure.
It did not.
The correlation between seasonal mileage and away xG difference per match was just -0.09. In practical terms, that is almost no relationship at all. Clubs travelling further did not consistently produce worse underlying away performances than clubs with shorter journeys. Football Club History Database StatMuse
Figure 2 — Underlying performance shows even less evidence of a travel penalty. Football Club History Database StatMuse
Breaking the metric apart does not uncover a hidden pattern either.
Travel had an approximate -0.09 correlation with away xG and +0.06 with away xGA. Football Club History Database StatMuse
In other words, the higher-mileage clubs did not systematically create substantially less or concede substantially more expected-goal value.
Even removing Newcastle and Sunderland — the two obvious North East geographical outliers — barely changes the result. Without them, the relationship falls to approximately -0.03 for away points per match and -0.02 for away xG difference. Football Club History Database StatMuse
The extreme journeys were not hiding the effect.
The obvious problem: Arsenal are better than Wolves
There is one obvious complication in all of this.
Football teams are not equal.
Arsenal travelling 2,001 miles and Wolves travelling 1,884 does not make their away fixtures comparable. If one team is much stronger than another, that difference in quality could easily overwhelm a smaller effect from travel.
So FIVDA introduced a separate measure of strength.
Each club’s home xG difference per match was used as the control. Full-season xG and xGA were combined with away-only figures to isolate what each side produced in its 19 home fixtures. StatMuse StatMuse
The idea is straightforward.
Instead of asking whether Newcastle travelled further and performed worse than Arsenal, we first account for the fact that the clubs themselves were different strengths.
Using home performance also avoids measuring team quality with the same away results we are trying to explain.
Once quality is included, the estimated mileage effect remains negative.
But the evidence is still not strong enough to say travel was responsible.
Accounting for team quality does not change the answer
After accounting for home xG difference, another 1,000 seasonal one-way miles was associated with an estimated 0.147 fewer away points per match. Football Club History Database StatMuse StatMuse
At first glance, that sounds like evidence for a travel penalty.
The problem is that there is a lot of uncertainty around the estimate. The range supported by this analysis stretches from extra travel having a noticeable negative effect to having little effect at all — or even being associated with slightly better away results.
In football terms, we simply cannot say with confidence that those additional miles were costing clubs points.
The underlying performance measure tells much the same story. Another 1,000 miles was associated with an estimated 0.128 reduction in away xG difference per match, but again the uncertainty around that estimate was wide enough to include both a negative travel effect and essentially no meaningful effect. Football Club History Database StatMuse StatMuse
That distinction matters.
The calculations lean slightly towards the original theory: more travel, slightly worse away performance.
But they do not lean far enough for us to conclude that travel caused the difference.
This is not proof that travel has no effect.
It means one Premier League season does not provide convincing evidence that the clubs travelling furthest were meaningfully disadvantaged because of their mileage.
Perhaps mileage is the wrong fatigue measure
There is another limitation hidden in the word “travel”.
FIVDA measures geography.
It does not measure the actual journey or other factors that can make a Premier League away fixture difficult.
The original analysis used straight-line distance between stadiums. An alternative 2025/26 analysis from The Stats Zone uses shortest road routes and round-trip mileage instead, producing a different representation of travel burden. FIVDA The Stats Zone
Neither tells us precisely how demanding a trip was.
A 200-mile journey might involve a charter flight, a coach, rail travel or an overnight stay.
Straight-line miles do not tell us when players left home, when they arrived, how well they slept or how much preparation time the manager lost.
That distinction may help explain why the geographic imbalance looks far more dramatic than the football effect.
Premier League clubs know their domestic fixture schedule well in advance. Ordinary league travel can be planned.
The relevant fatigue variable may not be distance alone.
Travel may matter more when recovery disappears
Research outside the Premier League offers some useful context, though it should not be mistaken for direct evidence about English football.
A 2024 study of elite North American professional football found no clear relationship between acute travel measures and match outcomes or physical performance across its sample. It did, however, identify a small negative relationship between cumulative time away and team points, while the authors cautioned against causal interpretation. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Research into short-haul domestic travel in Australian professional football similarly suggested that situational variables, tactics, territoriality and psychological factors appeared more important to match outcome than travel itself within that sample. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
The distinction becomes especially relevant once European football is added.
Premier League analysis notes that clubs competing in Europe face not simply greater travel, but additional fixtures and reduced preparation and recovery time. Premier League
That is a different exposure from Newcastle travelling further than Aston Villa across 19 standard league away days.
Distance plus congestion may matter.
Domestic geography by itself did not show up clearly here.
So, did Newcastle really have a disadvantage?
Geographically, absolutely.
Newcastle travelled roughly 1,592 more one-way miles than Aston Villa across the league schedule. Football Club History Database
In terms of performance, however, we cannot show that those extra miles translated into a reliable domestic away disadvantage.
That is the answer FIVDA promised to come back for.
It is also a useful reminder about football analysis.
A disadvantage can be visible, intuitive and completely real in one sense without being large enough to detect in results.
Newcastle still had to make the journeys.
Sunderland did too.
But over one completed Premier League season, who travelled furthest told us very little about who played best away from home.
The geography was dramatic enough to make a striking map.
The football was not dramatic enough to make a convincing effect.
Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below, we’d love to hear them!
Stay tuned for future posts and please send us a message if there is a specific topic you would like to see covered.
As always, thanks for taking the time to read these posts!
JC
Sources for the data presented are referenced within the article.
The main image is from Pixabay by Krissyreynolds with the article title overlay.